Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus

The test read positive. Ayesha’s face flushed; tears formed in her eyes. She was trapped. She would be killed. She was a stain on her family’s honor. Amir, her soon-to-be husband, would turn her in as soon as he found out. She knew she deserved death. The shame was unbearable.

That night she had a vision. The brightness blinded her at first, but gradually she saw an angelic face and it said, “Ayesha! You are favored indeed by Allah! For God himself is the Father of your child. Do not be afraid. He will be great and be called the Son of the Most High.”

The next day Ayesha told her fiancé that God had impregnated her, she was still a virgin, and an angel had told her this. Would you believe Ayesha?

An ancient book says a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin and was sired by God himself. I once believed this, because I believed the Bible — a book I thought God himself wrote.

I was wrong.

Here are five reasons why I no longer believe in the virgin birth.

1) There is no reliable evidence.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples…

Ordinary events require evidence, but extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. By any classification, the virgin birth is an extraordinary event, yet there is no evidence to support it.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples — we have nothing except a couple references in the Bible that were written many decades after the event occurred.

2) The earliest references are late and sparse.

Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation!

It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

3) It’s the same old myth.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends.

Jesus was not the first god to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends. It doesn’t have any more evidence or appear to be any more likely. Why believe it over the others?

4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?

“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
– Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

A betrothed teenage girl finds out she is pregnant. The father is not her soon-to-be husband, and he knows this. In her society, the penalty for this prescribed by God is death by stoning. What does she do? She claims an angel appeared to her and told her God impregnated her, and that she is now carrying the Son of God.

Now what is more likely, that she is lying or telling the truth? Even if Mary claimed this herself, we would not believe her. Now consider that the story didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened.

The likelihood of the virgin birth being true is very, very, very low.

5) We would never, ever, believe this today.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

If she insisted on it being true, we would put her in a mental hospital.

Why does this change just because Jesus’ birth happened 2,000 years ago? There is no evidence in favor of it. Even if Mary herself claimed it, there would have been every incentive to lie about it since the only alternative was death. Again, why would anyone believe this?

————————————

We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.

Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.

Wait a minute, I thought which Gospel was written first was a decidedly open question. Furthermore, would not ‘young woman’ in the cultural context be equivalent to ‘virgin’? Mary was very young; would we expect her NOT to be a virgin at 14? Don’t the people who make hay of the difference between ‘virgin’ and ‘young woman’ have quite the interest in discrediting the claim? The diciples’ behavior is pretty odd if they made it up. They painted themselves in the worst possible light, then Luke writes that the best witnesses to the (alleged) resurrection were women. That’s pretty stupid, unless it really happened. Just some thoughts.

Your argument is really good. I guess if I believed that Jesus actually existed, your explanation would make perfect sense. And even if Jesus was actually a real person, I find the stuff in the gospels too hard to believe–all of it, not only the virgin birth.

I thought which Gospel was written first was a decidedly open question.

It’s still being debated, but the majority of biblical scholarship I’ve come across seems to lean towards Mark being the earliest.

Furthermore, would not ‘young woman’ in the cultural context be equivalent to ‘virgin’?

It’s not in our culture; why would it be in theirs?

Mary was very young; would we expect her NOT to be a virgin at 14?

Losing your virginity at fourteen happens today. It happens even more when people get married at fourteen. Can the same be said of virgin births?

Don’t the people who make hay of the difference between ‘virgin’ and ‘young woman’ have quite the interest in discrediting the claim?

In Canada, the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches (that I know of) use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible as the authoritative version. The NRSV translates Is. 7:14 as “Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.”

They do mention that the Greek versions of the Old Testament record the word as “virgin”, but the Hebrew would be translated into English as “young woman”.

Are you arguing that the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America have “quite the interest in discrediting the claim” of Jesus’ virgin birth?

And, when you get right down to it, can you tell me why anyone would think that Isaiah 7 refers to Jesus?

The diciples’ behavior is pretty odd if they made it up.

What behaviour is that?

They painted themselves in the worst possible light, then Luke writes that the best witnesses to the (alleged) resurrection were women. That’s pretty stupid, unless it really happened.

People act stupid all the time. We say and do stupid things. Miracles are much more rare.

Of course, in defence of Jesus’ closest disciples, they might not have been stupid. They may have been misquoted, exagerated, or even fictitious instead.

Besides, Daniel is writing about the virgin birth, not the resurrection. The disciples have nothing to do with that.

…We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples …

Just curious, but how would an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus be able to confirm or deny the virginity of Mary? What would you expect there to be an eyewitness to the miraculous conception of Jesus that was not also divine? Also, even if you had a DNA sample of Jesus, what would you expect it to look like if he was born of a virgin?

I guess what I am asking is, how would the presence of an eyewitness, a doctor or a DNA sample be able to confirm anything in this story?

…Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope….

yikes!! I don’t think any of these characters except Persues are widely regarded as having been ‘virgin born’. Does even a character like Romulus, whos mother was a vistil virgin having been raped by the god Ares even count? The only way Mithras could be even considered virgin borne is with his possible connection with Perseus.

I suggest that if you are going to be a skeptic, be an equal opportunity skeptic. I can type ‘List of virgin births’ into Wikipedia the same way you did.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

I don’t know about Alex the Great, but you are hitting something with Augustus Ceaser. There is a difference between having a divine father and having a virgin mother.

Joh 20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen me you have belief: a blessing will be on those who have belief though they have not seen me! (BBE)

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the sign that the things not seen are true. (or the evidence of things not seen) (BBE)

Earliest refs: Admittedly, continuity may be lacking.

Myth: Hmm.

Be it lie/be it true: Is that the goal of faith? To prove what is a lie or prove what is true?

How would a virgin birth be viewed today: Luk 18:8 I say to you that he will quickly do right in their cause. But when the Son of man comes, will there be any faith on earth?

I grasp your argument. It extends well beyond a mere virgin birth. Do you have enough faith to believe that what God says will happen simply because He said it?

Take the big bang theory and the creator theory. God wasn’t reported to have said there was a big bang, so people will argue that one didn’t happen.

Continue extending love to your fellow and He that knows all will give you the faith to accept the virgin birth of Jesus.

7.BigHouse | September 15, 2008 at 9:25 am

I guess what I am asking is, how would the presence of an eyewitness, a doctor or a DNA sample be able to confirm anything in this story?

Assuming a divine impregnation doesn’t happen the same way regular ones do (i.e. through physical intercourse), one could ‘witness’ that Mary was still a virgin (with an unbroken hymen), yet be very clearly pregnant.

However, eyewitness and DNA accounts would be extremely difficult, as they would be of the ‘rule out’ variety, rather than the ‘confirming’ variety.

Their rebuttal seems to be: “Of course there’s no evidence, silly! It requires faith! I hope God gives you faith to believe so he doesn’t send you to hell!”

But if there’s no evidence, and it requires faith, why believe this over any of the other stories? Why believe Christianity over any of the other religions? If it’s all just faith, then you just take your pick and believe whatever, because there’s no evidence.

10.VorJack | September 15, 2008 at 10:48 am

HelsSailing-

What it comes down to is this: given the evidence we have, the historical method requires us to conclude that the virgin birth is a literary creation or the passing on of a legend. For us to change that conclusion, we need some kind of outside evidence.

DNA, doctor, eyewitness, whatever. What kind of evidence do we need? Well, what have you got? One of the later proto-orthodox gospels – the Protoevangelium of James – had an interesting idea. A doubting midwife reached into Mary in order to verify the presence of a hymen. Of course, she got her hand shriveled as punishment for her lack of faith. But a doctor’s report showing the presence of a hymen immediately before the birth – or as in the Protoevangelium, after the birth – would work

But regardless, until we have additional evidence, we must render the provisional verdict that the virgin birth is not historical. What we may not do is invoke a special pleading for the Gospels that we would not invoke for other writings of the time. If you’re not going to accept that Ceaser Augustus was conceived when his mother mated with Apollo in the form of a giant white snake, then you have no business insisting on a virgin birth for Jesus.

11.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 11:04 am

As I looked at this article, my thought was, “Who cares?” I mean, if there’s no YHWH, then Jesus is just some guy. Whether his mother was a virgin or not is of no consequence at all. So why waste the effort to even discuss it?

As for evidence or lack of same, the ONLY evidence consists of a few statements in the Bible. There is no other evidence at all. If you don’t believe the Bible is a reliable, historical document, then there is no reliable evidence at all. If you do believe the Bible is reliable, then there’s no debate.

Like HIS, I think the arguments set forth are weak, but then the whole issue is weak.

Oh, and just as an FYI, …. virgin births are not unheard of. A virgin can get pregnant, without vaginal penetration. It’s unusual, and rare, but it is physiologically possible.

Leo has a point, it’s not unheard of for a girl to become pregnant without full penetration that would rupture the hymen. Rare, but not impossible.

Also, I once heard a preacher or pastor (can’t recall exactly who, when or where now) say that the ‘immaculate conception’ did not refer to Jesus being born to a virgin, but that Mary herself was conceived without sin (i.e., she got a pass on the whole ‘original sin’ thing). I don’t know how widely known that little twist is.

It does all depend on who your target audience is for an article. Daniel is obviously writing to a primarily Christian audience explaining why, even in the context of Christianity, the virgin birth does not make sense.

It’s a weak argument, from your perspective, because you do not see any credibility in the basic concepts he’s using to make his argument. However, for a skeptical Christian who still places value in the scripture, in God’s existence, etc., this may be useful.

Paul

14.ubi dubium | September 15, 2008 at 11:35 am

Leo –
My thought was “Who is this article aimed at”? I don’t think he’s really speaking to those who have already decided that god is imaginary. It seems to be more appropriate for those who are just beginning to seriously question the dogma they have been taught.

Digital Dame,
The immaculate conception is indeed the conception of Mary–not Jesus.

The reason is this:
Jesus is Holy and being born of a woman who is not holy would make Jesus himself not holy.

At the “annunciation,” (when the bible said an angel “announced” to Mary that she was with child, the angel said that She is “full of grace.”

Catholics (Modern Protestants usually don’t) believe that this is referring to her “holiness.” After all, if she is “full” of grace, then how could she be “half full” of sin?

Yes, in your words, she “got a pass on the whole original sin thing.” That was to create a way for the new arc (Mary) to contain the new law (Jesus) without desecration.

16.SnugglyBuffalo | September 15, 2008 at 11:55 am

Pat Man-

Jesus is Holy and being born of a woman who is not holy would make Jesus himself not holy.

This frankly makes even less sense to me. If Jesus is truly part of the Trinity, it seems ridiculous that human corruption could affect him. If Jesus was really the son of God, I would expect him to be holy regardless of the status of his mother.

And if Mary can get out of the original sin deal, and effectively not need a savior, why doesn’t God just do that for everyone and skip the whole sacrificing his Son and eternally damning those who don’t accept him thing?

Snuggly,
The ten commandments were “holy” as well, and were to be kept in a special, holy place.

Yes, Jesus is God, but his incarnation was that of a holy entrance.

As for treating all people just as he did Mary, I’m not God! You could fairly make this argument for many people in the Bible. I wasn’t trying to confuse anyone, I was affirming a “rumor.” It is a hard teaching–one that the best minds in history have contemplated for thousands of years. “Hard teachings” are often ignored, changed, etc. That’s why it was a much more “popular” belief until the last 200 years or so.

Usually “special treatment” of Bible characters is for a reason. Atheists usually believe it is man doing the teaching, but Christians believe that the “special treatment” of characters is a way God teaches us divine truths. You see, not everything can be taught in a lab–that’s why Jesus didn’t enter the world in a test tube.

18.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Digital Dame:

You are right in that the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being born without the stain of original sin. It is very widely known amongst Catholics since it’s one of their central dogmas. Among Protestants, it’s generally either not known, or else it’s incorrectly understood (e.g. applying it to Jesus).

The Orthodox do not hole the doctrine. Mostly because the Catholics made it up rather late and the Orthodox pretty much don’t allow any doctrinal or dogmatic changes after the 3rd century.

As an aside, there are O’s who think Mary was sinless, not because she was born without original sin, but because she just didn’t sin. Hence the reason why they call her, “All Holy”. Frankly the O’s, like the C’s, worship Mary like a fourth member of the Trinity. [O’s and C’s alike would vehemently deny that, but just go read what they say about her and it puts the lie to their denial.]

19.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 12:53 pm

SB:

This frankly makes even less sense to me. If Jesus is truly part of the Trinity, it seems ridiculous that human corruption could affect him. If Jesus was really the son of God, I would expect him to be holy regardless of the status of his mother.

You are correct. The theological answer would be that Jesus received his humanity from his mother (just as he received his divinity from his father), thus, if Mary’s human nature included original sin, then baby Jesus would have gotten contaminated (stained) by that. So she had to be “a spotless and pure vessel”. [Yeah, I know it’s dumber than dogshit, but what do you expect?]

And if Mary can get out of the original sin deal, and effectively not need a savior, why doesn’t God just do that for everyone and skip the whole sacrificing his Son and eternally damning those who don’t accept him thing?

Right on. As someone put it so well, “If I want to forgive someone, I just forgive them. I don’t tell them to kill a cow first, or set up some elaborate sacrifice of another person. Why can’t God manage to do what we humans do so easily?”

LeoPardus was talking about Mary’s “Immaculate Conception,” which is a different thing entirely from the Perpetual Virginity. And, for the record, Perpetual Virginity usually refers to the doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. The Apostle’s creed says nothing about PV.

As far as I know, Perpetual Virginity, Immaculate Conception, and the Bodily Assumption of Mary are all medieval doctrines created by the Catholic church. Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption were both made “offical” by the Pope speaking “ex cathedra,” two of the very few pieces of doctrine backed by papal infallibility. So Mary was born without sin, conceived without sex, and ascended without dying. You can see, I hope, how many Christians feel that Catholics place Mary outside of the realm of humanity and make her at least a demi-god.

24.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Pat answers Man:

Try not to write in code. It’s cumbersome to decipher. (e.g. “PV” may be understood by some, but it’s hardly day-to-day terminology for most. BTW, PV = perpetual virginity…. How’s that for writing in code?)

I believe there are two or maybe three veiled references to Mary’s perpetual virginity prior to 200AD. St. Jerome, in his rather unsaintly polemic against Helvidius, claims that there were earlier, explicit references, but he does not say where, and we can not find them, nor any references to them, today. The actual dogmatic proclamation of PV did not happen until the 19th century.

No. In fact that very matter has been addressed here before. Did it make you feel smart to make that mistaken implication?

25.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Pat answers Man:

SB.
“Why can’t God manage to do what we humans do so easily?”

SB didn’t say that, I did.

Now I know this site is a joke. I was duped.

The joke’s on you. You ARE duped.

26.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Oh yes, as VorJack, called your attention to, try to keep your doctrines straight. Don’t talk PV when the issue on the table is IC. :)

27.HeIsSailing | September 15, 2008 at 1:54 pm

I said …

…Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers…

What was I thinking? Phillip II of Macedon was the father of Alex the Great. I don’t recall any legedary stories referring to Alex the Great as having been born from a Divine Father. Even if that is so, that is a whole different issue from having a virgin mother.

28.HeIsSailing | September 15, 2008 at 2:06 pm

LeoPardus says:

…I mean, if there’s no YHWH, then Jesus is just some guy. Whether his mother was a virgin or not is of no consequence at all. So why waste the effort to even discuss it?…

Concur 100%. The evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus was never an issue in my leaving Christianity. Now the contradictions between the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are a whole nother matter. But as I investigated the validity of Scripture and found it wanting, things like the virgin birth just sort of went out with the rest of the wash.

29.HeIsSailing | September 15, 2008 at 2:07 pm

If any Christians are reading this, I would like you to answer this informal survey question – if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiosity:

Does Salvation require one to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus?

Before you answer, consider this: Christians generally agree that Salvation requires Faith in the Jesus’ substitutionary atonement for sin. But Salvation also requires that we have Faith in the correct Jesus (ie if you are a Baptist, Faith in the Mormon Jesus does not count). What must one believe about Jesus in order to believe in the correct Jesus? Must one believe in the virgin birth in order to be saved?

30.VorJack | September 15, 2008 at 2:08 pm

HelsSailing –
“What was I thinking? Phillip II of Macedon was the father of Alex the Great. I don’t recall any legedary stories referring to Alex the Great as having been born from a Divine Father.”

I remember hearing of a divine paternity for Alexander. Zeus, if I remember correctly. They didn’t drop Phillip from the picture, though. Sort of the way early Christians said that Jesus was the son of God, yet still linked him to the House of David through Joesph.

“Even if that is so, that is a whole different issue from having a virgin mother.”

How about Danae, mother of Perseus? IIRC, her father kept her locked away from suitors, so Zeus came upon her as a shower of gold that impregnated her.

We pause now while all you immoral atheists get the “golden shower” jokes out of your system.

Anyway, it’s not a huge leap in the story to make the woman a virgin. I suspect that it wasn’t common simply because women in the ancient world tended to be married as soon as they were fertile.

31.HeIsSailing | September 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm

How about Danae, mother of Perseus? IIRC, her father kept her locked away from suitors, so Zeus came upon her as a shower of gold that impregnated her.

Perseus is the only personality listed in the original article that I would even consider as born of a virgin, as I said earlier in comment #5. Every other name listed in this article was copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article “List of Virgin Births” with apparantly no effort at all gone into investigating these names. I am all for skepticism, but there really is such a thing as *bad* skepticism.

32.ubi dubium | September 15, 2008 at 2:22 pm

PatMan-
You say you were duped. You sound like someone who has never questioned any of the dogma you were taught, so I am not sure what brings you here. Can you tell us what you were expecting to find at a website for skeptical and former believers?

Ubi,
I was sort of sucked in to learn about atheists–not to convert them If you look at my posts, you’d see no evidence of my trying to change anyone’s minds.

I understand that this is a “resource” for decons, but I noticed some Christians here who were trying to evangelize. I don’t think it’s right to evangelize in someone’s home. So, out of my own curiosity, i hung around to see how it went. I then found a “ce-conversion story” similar to some experiences i had and a chord struck.

What I was expecting was a more informed group of “former believers.” Not people who Left something they don’t understand, and are now “experts” at what they never knew–as Leo is again proving.

I guess it’s a question of literary convention, then. Does the fact that Mary was supposedly a virgin make for a new convention, or can we lump her in with all the others in a sort of “divine conception” literary convention? I’m not sure that the fact that Mary was a virgin is enough to make her story stand out from the rest.

Pat Man –

Alright, now I think you’re just confusing the issue. Do you know the difference between the doctrines of Virgin Birth, Perpetual Virginity and Immaculate Conception? Which one are you claiming was early?

37.ubi dubium | September 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm

PatMan

What I was expecting was a more informed group of “former believers.” Not people who Left something they don’t understand, and are now “experts” at what they never knew–as Leo is again proving.

Some of the de-cons have degrees in divinity. They’re so informed that they often talk way over my head. What you are seeing is that they don’t come from a Catholic background, but from evangelical, eastern orthodox, mormon, salvation army, and many others. If someone were to ask you about details of the mormon tradition I would guess that you would sound pretty “uninformed”. But when it comes to the things that christians supposedly hold in common, they know their stuff. I hope we can challenge you to take a look at catholicism as an outsider would see it. It all seems normal and obvious to you because you are used to it, just like a fundamentalist is used to assuming biblical inerrancy or a mormon is used to assuming…er…special underwear or something. (I don’t know, I was never mormon.)

38.Cooper | September 15, 2008 at 3:45 pm

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

I think you are forgetting that many stories appear in one or two of the Gospels which do not appear in the other two. Some stories are covered by all (4)—others appear solely in one Gospel. The Bible says the Holy Spirit is the author of the Gospels, so there is a reason why some stories appear in all Gospels, and some in only one, etc. It is a bad use of logic to say that because it is only mentioned in one Gospel and not the orthers, that it is not historically accurate, or was somehow “made up” by the author. Each Gospel sheds a different light on Jesus Christ.

39.VorJack | September 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Cooper -“The Bible says the Holy Spirit is the author of the Gospels”

Really? Where? Surely you’re not taking one line from 2nd Timothy – a letter written before all the Gospels – and applying it to the whole modern set of books and letters?

Regardless, if we’re to take this as a historical problem, we have to treat the Gospels as separate, but not independent, accounts. Thus the fact that the earliest accounts don’t mention a virgin birth means that the virgin birth is not likely to be historical.

Concur 100%. The evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus was never an issue in my leaving Christianity. Now the contradictions between the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are a whole nother matter. But as I investigated the validity of Scripture and found it wanting, things like the virgin birth just sort of went out with the rest of the wash.

The problems with the virgin birth was actually one of the things that did lead to my deconversion. Not most of the problems listed in Daniel’s article, but simply the realization that the prophecy in Isaiah 7 was used in Matthew as evidence that Jesus was Messiah, despite it having nothing to do with Jesus, and being mistranslated in the first place! This is part of what weakened my faith in the Bible as divine revelation, which helped lead to me realizing that we had no clear revelation of God or God’s will, which lead me to doubt there is a god at all. There were other factors, but studying this stuff while planning my Advent sermons really disheartened me.

Pat Man,

I’ll leave your “home” in peace.

Please do.

41.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Pat Man:

My mistake. I assumed way too much from you.

Yes you did. You assumed that I was a typically ignorant Protestant, who knows little to nothing of Catholicism, church history, doctrinal development, Ancient Fathers, etc. That OK. It’s a common enough misassumption.

Now that you admit that the Apostle’s creed “confirms” the virgin birth,

I never said it did not affirm the virginity of Mary when she gave birth to Christ. What I implied was that it says nothing about her Perpetual Virginity. I.e. that she remained a virgin after his birth. That issue just is not addressed in the Apostles Creed. (And still has nothing to do with Immaculate Conception, the issue that was at hand, and which you seem to have trouble differentiating from PV or VB.)

Connect some dots… What is the theology behind those dots?

I do not see what you’re referring to. Perhaps you’re talking about the Augustinian ideas that would support the logic that PV is implied by IC because sex/reproduction are steeped in sin? Clarify please.

As for your “demi-god” theory, more like demagogue–good “standard of proof” you have there.

My “demi-god” theory?? What ARE you talking about?

42.LeoPardus | September 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm

What I was expecting was a more informed group of “former believers.” Not people who left something they don’t understand, and are now “experts” at what they never knew–as Leo is again proving.

Kindly back up you assertions. Aside from my knowing the Ancient Fathers, citing specific addresses by them on issues like PV, and being able to delineate differences between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theology and history, and attempting to clarify your errors, how have I “proved” my lack of understanding?

I’ll leave your “home” in peace.

Stick around. You might learn something. With all the divinity grads, religious studies majors, apologists, and widely read individuals around this place, there’s much to learn. Of course it would require that you not think of yourself as God’s restorative remedy to human ignorance. That might be a hard first step for you.

43.Cooper | September 15, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Cooper -”The Bible says the Holy Spirit is the author of the Gospels”

Really? Where? Surely you’re not taking one line from 2nd Timothy – a letter written before all the Gospels – and applying it to the whole modern set of books and letters?

VorJack–

I was actually referring to this verse:

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:20,21)

VorJack–

You may not accept it but the Bible says that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. He knows what is in each book, and authored the Gospels in such a way that they can be harmonized. Last night I was reading Luke. There are two stories in Ch. 15 and 16 which do not appear in any of the other Gospels (The Prodigal Son and the Rich Man and Lazarus respectively). Because they only appear in this one Gospel am I to conclude Jesus must not have told them because they do not appear in the other 3? Because the virgin birth does not appear in Mark or John is no reason to say it must be an invalid story. God only has to say something once—He has his reasons for not including the story in ALL of the Gospels.

This principle is very true. The Bible itself states that it was written by the Holy Spirit. You would have to accept that the Bible is the Word of God because it says it is—I realize this.

One can never prove the Bible was written by the Holy Spirit—no outward source will state that—-except other Theological books which base their premise on what the Bible states of itself. I, howver, am not trying to “prove” anything—-I was simply stating what the Bible says.

I will stick with the statement though that a story (such as the virgin Birth, the three wise men, etc.) does not have to appear in all (4) Gospels to be an accepted story by Christians. And because Paul doesn’t mention the virgin birth is no amazing thing—-he doesn’t mention any of Christ’s miracles in detail either (water into wine, healing lepers, healing the blind and lame, etc—nothing specifically) and Peter only mentions the voice he heard on the Holy Mount in his letters.

You speak of circular logic—this is true. But often(and I’m not sure what type of logic this is labeled) atheists use a logic which says because something isn’t mentioned everywhere in the Bible, it must not have really occurred anywhere in the Bible. That is a very foolish assumption.

46.VorJack | September 15, 2008 at 6:51 pm

Cooper – “Because the virgin birth does not appear in Mark or John is no reason to say it must be an invalid story”

Invalid? At what point did I say that any part of the bible was invalid? I said that we cannot assume that parts are historical, but that is not the same thing as calling them invalid. They may indeed have great validity – literary, theological or philosophical.

If there never was a Samaritan on the road to Jericho, does that make the parable invalid? Of course not. But if Jesus himself never spoke the parable, does it become invalid then? Of course not.

If Jesus himself did not create the golden rule, but was instead quoting a tradition of the pharisees, does that make the golden rule invalid? Does it lose it’s wisdom or its power because it originally came from the lips of someone other than Jesus? If instead it was created by some later follower of Jesus, does it lose it’s power then?

Will you really say, like so many fundamentalists I have heard, that is the bible is not absolutely historical we must throw it out? Do you really care so little for wisdom?

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:20,21)

What does this have to do with the Gospels? They aren’t prophecy, and when 2 Peter was written, they weren’t scripture.

He knows what is in each book, and authored the Gospels in such a way that they can be harmonized.

Except, oddly enough, for the resurrection accounts. If they can be harmonized, I have yet to see how.

48.Cooper | September 15, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Quester—-

I would argue that all scripture is indeed prophetic—but if 2 Peter cannot be accepted there is the verse often quoted:

Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;(2 Timothy 3:16).

VorJack—I’m not really sure where you are coming from actually, but if you did not say that any part of the Bible is invalid then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

Quester—-

Not sure what you mean about the resurrection accounts. Do you mean who saw Jesus first, who was at the tomb, etc.? Often chronological events need to be carefully pieced together to be really understood correctly. For example, a woman may say “When I went to the store earlier there was a man selling cucumbers”. If she, however, made two trips to the store, and you were not aware of it, there could “appear” to be a conflict, especially if someone else said “I was at the store today too and I didn’t see a man selling cucumbers”.

Once you cleared up the fact that she had gone in the morning and then later in the afternoon you would understand how she saw the man. All she said was “When I went to the store earlier today”. Very bad analogy—but the Gospels have many similar things—–you have to “think through” what has been said, and realize that several people are all speaking of things they saw, which did not all happen at the same time, or could have occured over a few visits, not just one.

Many of the miracles have the same thing: one person says there were two lepers, another speaks of only one—-they both sound like the same occurrence, and most likely THEY ARE—-yet one person is EMPHASIZING the healing of one leper, while the other is being more detailed about how many people were really there.

Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;(2 Timothy 3:16).

Which was written by Paul to refer to the Hebrew scriptures, which we often refer to as the Old Testament. The New Testament was not consiudered scripture when Paul wrote this epistle. VorJack already addressed this. Got anything that indicates the Gospel accounts were inspired?

Often chronological events need to be carefully pieced together to be really understood correctly.

Lovely. Now, open your bible, look at the resurrection accounts, and see if you can piece them together, instead of just assuming you can. HeIsSailing’s article over here may be useful in underscoring some of the discrepancies.

That is a matter of personal interpretation, and thus contradicts 2 Peter 1:20,21.

51.VorJack | September 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Cooper – “I’m not really sure where you are coming from actually”

I was trying to take an old argument in a slightly-less-old direction. Obviously that’s not coming across. Lemme just close out the thought with a favorite quote from Robert M. Price:

“The claim to inspiration is pernicious. First, it implicitly insults the very book it seeks to praise, as if one need not take the Bible seriously unless one could be persuaded that a superhuman entity wrote it. Much of the Bible is so profound, so wise, so beautiful, so edifying that any claim of miraculous inspiration adds absolutely nothing to the inherent force of its words…”

52.Monty | September 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Wasn’t the messiah supposed to be a descendant of David? If so, Jesus would be one of David’s descendants through Joseph, not Mary. OK, God is a stepper and this ain’t much of a step for a stepper, but still, people shouldn’t try to have it both ways. Either Jesus is the messiah and came into existence the good old fashioned way (through Joseph), or he isn’t. I’m leaning toward the latter.

We have been told for so long that Matthew and Luke wrote that Jesus had no human father. But is this the case, or has Jewish idiom been twisted to fit the mentality of the Greek interpreters of the Bible?

The interpretations theologians give to the birth narratives run into problems at every instance: Matthew supposedly did not quote Isaiah’s prophecy, but a translation which says something different to the original; supposedly the NT has 2 genealogies of Joseph (who is irrelevant) and none of Jesus! ; a ridiculous interpretation is given to Mary’s question; it is claimed the angel’s assurance confirms a virgin birth in Mary’s case, but not in Elizabeth’s case; and so on.

You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle

‘Either Jesus is the messiah and came into existence the good old fashioned way (through Joseph), or he isn’t. I’m leaning toward the latter.”

When I was at Bible school, I sat down with a professor and explained my dilemma:

According to ANE thought, lineage is through the males – even more so when it comes to kingly rule. How then can Jesus be considered a valid descendant of David fit to be his heir if Jesus is only a descendant of David through Mary – a female?

After explaining the dilemma, he basically told me that if that was a problem for me, I could probably go to a different school. I was quite flabbergasted.

55.paleale | July 27, 2009 at 2:01 pm

I encounter so many people who refuse to see that there is a dilemma. It’s like consciously putting on a pair of blinders and refusing to take them off even though some is telling you that you’re walking off a cliff.

Good argument presented. Almost 1.2billion Muslims also believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. According to the Quran Mary goes into seclusion to give birth to Jesus. She is told (by an angel) not to speak to any one when she brings Jesus to her family. Accusations then fly and Mary points towards the baby Jesus, gesturing to ask him about the matter. People say should we ask a baby who is just in a cradle? Jesus then shows his first miracle by speaking up and defending his mother. Thus every one sees the miraculous nature of baby Jesus and Mary is saved from the wrath of the family and every one knows that he is a special child. Convincing but only if you believe. Miracles by their very nature are only for those who see and choose to believe. For others it is just a lie told in the past.

Okay, so if God isn’t the father who is? Would it be Joseph or was their a love triangle? That’s a strange thought, love triangle and Jesus.

61.Arthur Trafford | November 29, 2010 at 10:06 pm

Is your Messiah a real or counterfeit Messiah?

My Messiah is the same Messiah that is related to King David (of the Davidic Covenant); and the Messiah who walked with and taught the Apostles of Yeshua The Christ . My Messiah is 100 % human and 100 % God; whereas most Christians really only believe in a Messiah that is 50% human and 50% God (and they don’t even realize it)!!!

The Jews know that their Messiah is a blood relative of King David and of the tribe of Judah. The “Seed” of David reference in the Bible refers to a human male producing children. The Creator God only gives the responsibility for human reproduction to Adam & Eve and their descendants (which including you and me) to thousands of generations and God doesn’t change or alter the law of human reproduction, not even for the Messiah (especially since the Bible says that the Messiah is like us physically—but sinless).

I now know that Joseph’s “Seed” is what caused Mary to be pregnant with the child Jesus. If Joseph isn’t the biological father, then Joseph adopting Jesus isn’t going to make Jesus related to King David or his descendants. In the same way Sarah adopting the child that Abraham fathered, didn’t make him the child of God’s Promise, but only a child of passion and lust. Isaac was the child of promise and not his older half-brother.

Christians will state that Jesus is 100% God and 100% human. And that Jesus has a body “Just like ours”. I am pretty sure that the person reading this letter has a human mother and a human father who God used to give them life (which makes me like the person who is reading this letter). If you are born of a virgin, you are not “just like me” !!! If Joseph didn’t get Mary pregnant then Jesus is 50% human because of Mary; and Jesus is 50% God because of God.

When we humans are conceived, God puts a human “CREATED SPIRIT” in the unborn children that we are. When Jesus was conceived by Joseph and Mary, God did something different to THEIR child; instead of putting a human “created spirit” in Jesus, God puts His own Spirit into the child Jesus!!! Which means Jesus now has a 100% human body (because of Joseph’s seed and Mary’s womb) and 100% God, because there is “no” human “created spirit” of a person in Jesus, but only the “Spirit of God”!!!

God destroyed ancient Israel because of their unbelief, killing the prophets of God and killing their Promised Messiah and ours! I realize that all humans ever born, are responsible for the death of the Messiah; but God chose Israel to be the Spiritual leaders to instruct and guide us to know and serve the One True Living God of this world.

It appears that modern day Israel also isn’t able to grasp the concept of a ruling King and suffering servant Messiah. I understand why the Jews reject the Christian Messiah. The Jews know that the Promised Messiah is a blood relative of King David. If they had computers and DNA testing back thousands of years ago, and you tested King David, his son, grandson and all others in his family tree, including Joseph, Mary and Jesus; in a court of law it can be proved scientifically that Jesus is LITERALLY of the seed of David. Not a step-child of Joseph (and therefore half human and not biologically related to King David through Joseph).

Recently I was writing to a Jewish Christian I know, and I stated that after the virgin birth that I believe that Joseph and Mary had a “Normal” marriage like other married couples (companionship, sex and children) and therefore she didn’t stay a virgin her whole life, as is taught by some people.

I was surprised to hear that this Jewish Christian stated that the doctrine of the virgin birth was added to scripture at a time in history after all the apostles, their children and grandchildren are all dead and before the Protestant Reformation happened. Paul stated that after his death that wolves would come in and not spare the flock. I use to think that the Jews were being stubborn and rebellious for not accepting the Messiah Jesus Christ. But it turns out that the Christian dogma is what the Jews are rejecting.

The Apostle Paul wrote 13 books in the New Testament. Paul was the Theologian type and he never mentioned the virgin birth. Luke was a physician and wouldn’t be qualified to teach Theology. Of all the miracles that Paul writes about, “you would think” that he would mention it as the greatest miracle of “motherhood” and just as exciting, dramatic and important as the raising of the dead!!! Not even Jesus mentioned a supposed virgin birth, or a “perpetual” virgin Mary. His silence screams deception.

Adam, Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Paul the Apostle, King David, Judas, Joseph, Mary, and you and me have been deceived by self, Satan and others. Promoting the virgin birth will get you a bad grade in a Logic 101 class, and reveal you are spiritually blind to the truth that Satan has lied to our Christian leaders throughout history.

The concept of a virgin or non-virgin birth of the Promised Messiah is conflicting and antithetical to each other. If you have a personal relationship with and commitment to Jesus Christ, your opinion of the virgin / or non-virgin birth does not affect your salvation.

May we be more concerned about knowing the TRUTH and less concerned about defending our religious traditions that make us feel insecure, and fearful if we question there validity: And presuming we are sinning against God if we change our opinion on how the Messiah became human.

John 8: 36

Sincerely,

Arthur Trafford

62.cag | November 30, 2010 at 9:43 pm

#61 Arthur Trafford – you might consider spreading your BS on a site that will actually be receptive to the lies that your parents taught you. Here we are concerned about real truth, not biblical fiction. There is no god or satan, they are both 404.

63.Arthur Trafford | November 30, 2010 at 10:30 pm

The bottom line is:

The Bible verse that states a judgment against “anyone” who would add to, change, or delete any Scripture letter, word, sentence, paragraph, chapter, or book (s) of The Bible, will receive God’s Judgment. Since there is “nothing” in this world that is “perfect;” therefore the verses warning us not to change the Scripture is a useless and unnecessary warning IF SCRIPTURE CAN’T BE CHANGED BY HUMAN INTERVENTION.

When Satan implants error in Scripture; and now everyone reinforces that error simply because they read it in The “changed” Bible and they are naive and take for granted that GOD WOULDN’T ALLOW ERROR TO HAPPEN, then I am sceptically (not with God’s Word) but with mans proclivity to “not” sin and to “not” disobey God and His word and then proclaim their own gospel message!!! Human beings got together and decided what Books will be Canonized in Scripture. And there is no evidence that “these Bible scholars” were “perfect” Christians or Jews and I know some of them had their own mind-altering agendas to accomplish.

I heard a story about a man who was walking in a park and he observed a man and a dog in the distance. He got within speaking range and ask the man if his dog bites; and the man said, no my dog doesn’t bite. So the man reaches out to pet the dog and the dog severely bites him and causes him extreme pain and a severe injury. He then screams at the man and says, “I thought you said that your dog doesn’t bite. The stranger then says, “That is not my dog”! Presumption doesn’t always kill, but it can hurt a little or a lot.

When you scream at me and say, “Why don’t you believe “all” of God’s Word”. And I calmly and softly say, I believe all that “God” has written, but I refuse to believe the lies that sinful humans have added, deleted or changed in the Bible. God didn’t stop Satan from changing God’s “Spoken Word” in the garden of Eden; and He doesn’t stop you and me from sinning against God and He surely didn’t stop men from altering God’s Word! Lucifer said to Adam and Eve, “You shall not surely die”, Lucifer meant physically and God meant you will be spiritually dead after you sin. This truth applies to 21st Century humanity as well.

Naive Protestants and Catholics continue to believe in a Savior that is half-human and half-God; and they can’t justify that fact!!!

God bless you and your family!!! # 62 Cag

64.Ubi Dubium | November 30, 2010 at 10:31 pm

Thank you cag, my sentiments exactly. I really don’t give a flip about this fictional messiah or his parentage. We could just as well discuss the parentage of Zoroaster or Mithras, for all the use that would be.

Today’s Most Read Posts

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.